VDMA has called for faster European trade-defence action against subsidised and unfairly priced machinery imports from China, arguing that the EU’s product-by-product investigation process no longer reflects the speed at which industrial markets are changing.
The German mechanical and plant engineering association wants countervailing measures to be considered across broader product groups where evidence shows that competitive distortion is systemic. Construction machinery is among the sectors identified, although the approach could extend to other equipment categories if adopted by European institutions.
VDMA has also proposed reversing the burden of proof in selected cases, requiring companies accused of benefiting from prohibited subsidies or other distortive practices to demonstrate that their products were produced and priced on commercial terms.
Rather than supporting indiscriminate tariffs or broad import quotas, the association is seeking targeted measures linked to documented market distortion. Blanket restrictions could raise the cost of machinery and components used by European manufacturers, disrupt established supply arrangements, and provoke retaliation against exporters with substantial business in China.
Chinese machinery companies have expanded rapidly across construction equipment, machine tools, automation, electrical systems, renewable-energy manufacturing, and production technology. Greater domestic scale and sustained investment have allowed several suppliers to compete increasingly on performance, product range, and engineering capability rather than price alone.
European manufacturers operate against higher labour and energy costs, fragmented regional markets, and increasingly complex regulation, while many continue to rely on China for sales, components, and production. Trade policy must therefore address unfair competition without damaging the commercial relationships and supply routes on which the same companies depend.
Broader product-group measures could allow intervention before a market has been substantially reshaped. Under a narrowly defined investigation, suppliers may adjust specifications, model ranges, or tariff classifications while proceedings continue, limiting the effect of a decision that arrives several years after the alleged distortion began.
Machinery categories are nevertheless difficult to define precisely. Products that share a customs heading can vary widely in power, dimensions, controls, safety architecture, application, and technical value, while some imported equipment has no immediate European equivalent.
Any product-group duty would consequently require detailed technical and economic evidence. Policymakers must distinguish between legitimate manufacturing efficiency, lower input costs, exchange-rate effects, state support, and pricing intended to remove competitors from a market.
Capital equipment pricing adds further complexity because installation, software, finance, training, service, tooling, and maintenance may be bundled into a single commercial offer. Comparing headline machine prices does not necessarily reveal whether the overall transaction has been subsidised or whether the supplier carries a genuine cost advantage.
VDMA is also seeking stronger market surveillance, which could address competitive imbalance without relying solely on border measures. European machinery must comply with safety, electromagnetic compatibility, cyber, environmental, documentation, and product-responsibility requirements, while imported equipment sold through fragmented distributors or online channels may receive less consistent scrutiny.
Effective enforcement would examine technical files, conformity documentation, declared performance, software support, spare-parts provision, and the identity of the responsible economic operator. Industrial purchasers also gain protection from machines that appear inexpensive at acquisition but are difficult to integrate, maintain, or operate safely.
Public procurement forms another strand of the association’s proposals. European suppliers frequently encounter restrictions or informal barriers when bidding for Chinese work, while Chinese manufacturers can compete for publicly funded projects across Europe. Reciprocal access rules would make market openness more closely dependent on equivalent treatment abroad.
The machinery sector is coordinating its political position more closely through the EUROPAMA federation, which brings together associations from Germany, the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and Switzerland. Trade, automation, regulation, cyber requirements, and industrial competitiveness increasingly cross national boundaries, particularly for manufacturers serving several European markets from one product platform.
Trade defence cannot substitute for investment in European production. Machinery companies still need to raise factory productivity, shorten development cycles, automate suitable processes, reduce energy consumption, strengthen service networks, and recruit the technical staff required to support increasingly software-intensive equipment.
China is also a source of genuine engineering development, and treating all competition as unfair would weaken the credibility of European action. Several Chinese machinery businesses have developed sophisticated products, large service organisations, and substantial research capability through sustained industrial expansion.
VDMA’s proposals attempt to separate those competitors from suppliers benefiting from demonstrable distortion. Designing measures that are fast enough to protect industrial capability, yet precise enough to avoid raising costs across European manufacturing, will require considerably more technical detail than a general call for higher tariffs.
